I do not think that the comparison with Germany in 1933 is helpful.
In terms of class, Trump is not a trumped up corporal but a bonafide member of the super-rich. If there is any historical comparison to be made it is with populist members of the Roman senatorial order like the Gracchi or Ceasar. In terms of nation, what we are dealing with here is not a second rank imperialist power aiming to be the top imperialist power, but the already top imperialist power. The politics of the German government in the 1930s were the outcome of an already long existing imperialist strategy going back many decades(see Fischer). The USA is the super power with only two rivals, Russia and China both of which are inferior to it in military power. Neither is able to threaten it. The long term strategy of the US bourgeois state has been to break up first the USSR and then Russia as its most serious military rival.
They have aimed to use Islamic radicalism and Ukrainian fascism as part of this long term strategy: Islamic radicalism being aimed at the states on the southern border and Ukrainian fascism on the western border. The aim is the breakup of Russia into a number of smaller states which can be easily dominated by the USA and by US companies.
In the context of this long term strategy of US imperialism, Clinton was the war candidate, the most aggressively anti-Russian of the two. Trump was the peace candidate with respect to Russia.
What we have is a split within the US Oligarchy between the Trump faction and the existing military intelligence apparatus. This split within the ruling class produces splits within the state apparatus, with the CIA aligning with Clinton and a significant fraction of the military and part of the FBI ( New York office in particular ) aligning with Trump.
This is a period of real instability in the ruling class, unprecedented for different sections of the intelligence community to intervene on different sides in an election.
The question is why Trump has a different strategy?
You only have to listen to his speeches to see: his section of the bourgoisie – real estate, energy see that the internal productive base of the US has been undermined by the policy of outsourcing production to China that has been followed by many manufacturing companies: hence the emphasis on restoring the infrastructure and domestic manufacturing and energy production. The energy sector also stands to gain from good relations with Russia in being able to get concessions on oil extraction there.
The large number of Generals backing him, reflects I think the realisation that whilst the US armed forces have the power to easily subdue minor powers, an actual invasion of Russia would be very foolhardy and that was where the policy of the Democrats was leading.
The instability of the ruling class should, in principle, open up opportunities for the left in the US, but they are so split and alienated from the mass of the working classes there that they have little chance. Indeed the Republicans are making a convincing move to gain working class support: